I know you will all probably crucify me but as far as circumstantial

[Jon8503]

evidence, that was the case with Scott Peterson as much as Robert Blake.

I am not saying the guy wasn't a cad or possibly did it. I am saying if we stick to our without any doubt, than you do not send a guy to his deaf.

I will also always believe that the abortion foes got in on this and they wanted to use this as assistance in their movement for the unborn.

I am just saying I would not have convicted the guy on circumstantial evidence but the jury will have to live with that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. Peterson was railroaded

There was not one scintilla of evidence connecting him to her murder. Nothing.

He was railroaded. Convicted and sentenced to death because he was a cad and a cheat. That's a pretty steep price to pay.

See how fast all the "tell-all" books came out after his conviction? The poor guy was surrounded by real beauties, wasn't he?

His sister, who was given up for adoption when she was an infant, and who doesn't really know him, is now making the rounds, touting her book on why she "knows" he killed his wife. What a sow.

[joeybee12]

5. Yeah, that's my gut reaction, too...the guy's no prize, but there really

wasn't any evidence. I just wonder if this has anything to do with 9-11. By that, I mean that people are much more likely to yield to authority now (I sure as hell ain't, but I'm in the minority), and anyone in authority gets a major benefit of the doubt. So, if the police and prosecutors bring a case against someone, then there's a huge bias for them--people figure the guy had to do it, or the police wouldn't have charged him.

In my mind, that's really fucked up.

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Interesting

I didn't know that. I didn't follow this story quite as much like the Ashley Smith and Brian Nichols story. I just thought it was way over hyped. I'm waiting for her to come out with a book now (Ashley). I give her a little while.

[Jon8503]

41. Thank God, yeah , don't leave the thread, that is what I am saying,

nothing about the kind of character he is. You do not convict on circumstantial evidence.

[TexasSissy]

48. Did you keep up with this case? There was a TON of evidence.

That's (ahem) why the jury found him guilty.

But you may mean there wasn't DIRECT, NON-CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence? There rarely is. Almost all criminals are found guilty on circumstantial evidence.

But there was the following, which is just what I recall off the top of my head. There was much more. And when taken as a whole, apparently the jury found it painted a picture of a murderer.

Presumption of guilt when suspect is fleeing the country (remember that?)
His alibi - he's fishing 90 miles away.
Bodies - wash ashore from the alibi fishing area where Peterson said he was.
Computer - Peterson checks on the tide action of the fishing area before going out to the bay (unnecessary for fishing).
Fishing - no evidence that the tackle box had been used or any fishing lures or anything had been used. No evidence of fishing.
Fishing - someone who fishes asked Peterson, after Peterson said he'd been fishing that day, what kind of fish he was fishing for, or what fish were in the bay. Peterson didn't say anything.
TV interview - Peterson lies in TV interview and says he told police right away he'd been having affair. (He hadn't told them right away. He only admitted it after Amber reported it.)
TV interview - Peterson says he'd told Laci about Amber, and she was okay with it. (His pregnant wife was "okay" about Amber? Please.)
Lies - Peterson was caught in numerous lies.
Amber - He told Amber his wife was deceased.
Amber - He told Amber he never wanted children, except for her existing daughter.
Affairs - Before Amber, there had been others. (obviously not a happily married man)
Lies - Told police he and Laci were happily married, no affairs or anything. Was very happy about pending birth of his son.
Guilty behavior - He calls Amber from the candle vigil the town is having for Laci. He lies to Amber and pretends he's in Paris, France, on business. He's very happy and upbeat. All on tape for the jury to hear.

And on and on. There was evidence of concrete stuff, strong bleach smell in the house on the day she went missing (Peterson said he was cleaning the house ????).

It was a culmination of all this weird "evidence." Some people don't believe that some of these things are evidence, but they are. It's no one thing. It's everything all rolled up that's hard, if not impossible, to explain unless the defendant is the murderer. Then everything falls into place. The jury found him guilty, and rightly so.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

70. That's not "evidence"

That's behavior, and if you can find a realistic, plausible, provable link in any of that behavior that shows that Mr. Peterson killed his wife - think Luminol, and there keep in mind there was no Luminol evidence - I'd agree with the jury verdict.

But when I read a quote from one of the jurors, who characterized the defendant as "a jerk," I seriously doubt the competence of the jury.

What you're trying to call "evidence" is simply worthless in the eyes of the law, unless there's a hanging judge - and there was - and a jury that's intent on convicting - and there was.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Circumstantial Evidence Is Worthless?

I doubt you would find another lawyer in the land that would endorse that notion...

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. I Knew You Would Pull That

"I'm a lawyer... You're not" bullshit on me but I thought it displayed a lack of tact for bragging about my creds on an internet bulletin board...

Here's a link...Lawyer-educate thyself

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/CriminalJury/2-3.html


There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness actually saw, heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from which you, the jury, could logically and reasonably infer the existence of another fact or set of facts even though it has not been proven directly. You are entitled to consider both kinds of evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that you must have direct evidence supporting a fact. You may apply the rule of circumstantial evidence.

There is no reason to be prejudiced against circumstantial evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the every day affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be as conclusive as would be the testimony of witnesses, speaking on the basis of their own observations.



You may draw reasonable inferences from facts that you find proven. The inferences that you draw from such facts must be reasonable and logical and not the result of speculation or conjecture. Where a group of facts as circumstantial evidence are relied upon for proof of an element of a crime, the inferences must not only be reasonable and logical, but the cumulative impact of the evidence must be such as to convince you that the element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.





Circumstantial evidence may not only be sufficient but may be more certain and satisfying than direct evidence under certain circumstances.

A conviction may rest solely on circumstantial evidence if you believe it and if it convinces you that the defendant's guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, before you decide that a fact has been proven by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense. Either party may present or rely on circumstantial evidence. The defendant may rely upon circumstantial evidence to raise a reasonable doubt; but remember that the defendant has no burden or obligation to prove anything. The state has the burden at all times to establish each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

100. Pull this

I'm a lawyer. You're not.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasSissy]

89. That's "evidence." At least the courts say so.

The bodies washing ashore from the area in which Peterson was at the time Laci went missing is not behavior.

Lying about facts related to a criminal case is not considered "behavior." Martha Stewart will tell you it's called obstruction of justice in some instances.

In the eyes of the law, what I listed was considered admissible evidence. If it weren't, the jury wouldn't have been allowed to consider it. I work in a law firm and am somewhat familiar with these things (but I'm not a lawyer).

There is no reasonable doubt in my mind that Scott Peterson is guilty. I DO have some doubt about Blake, but I'm not that familiar with the evidence in that case. I followed the Peterson case closely, though. He's as guilty as anyone can be. Up until his confession, some people thought Ted Bundy was not guilty, also. There was, after all, only circumstantial evidence that convicted him.

Circumstantial evidence is often more reliable than direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony. Witness can have faulty memories, be bought and sold, change their testimony, recant, etc. An unopened tackle box is just that - an unopened tackle box. And that's not behavior. Peterson was, in fact, not fishing on Christmas Eve (though he WAS in the bay).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

101. You're right - you're not a lawyer

Witness testimony isn't direct evidence.

You're taking on water...................

[DemocratSinceBirth]

107. It's Not???

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d050.htm

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did

[OldLeftieLawyer]

124. Honey,

if you're gonna buy what you look up on the Internet as a substitute for a real lawyer's opinion, I say "More power to you."

That's like believing that a picture of a car is a car.

[cidliz2004]

170. Where do you look up case law? Where are statutes put ....hint (in books)

Much research is done in LAW BOOKS. Your education was based on much information obtained in LAW BOOKS.

So, by your train of thought - words written in law books are not law, law is something of an object that can be seen, heard or touched...guess again.

There was much circumstantial evidence on Scott Peterson and if you don't see it, well all that I can say is too bad that Scott Peterson didn't have a few more people like you on the jury - he would have been found "not guilty". Thank God for the rest of the logical world that Scott Peterson was found GUILTY. It really was a no brainer....

Another thing, why didn't Scott Peterson want to take a lie detector test?

How about being down by the Mexico border heading into Mexico with cash, fake ID and dyed hair?

For someone that you think is not guilt, he sure acted like he was guilty.

[TexasSissy]

218. Here are the LEGAL definitions, Mr. Wrong-Lawyer:

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law:

direct evidence
: evidence that if believed immediately establishes the factual matter to be proved by it without the need for inferences

esp
: evidence of a factual matter offered by a witness whose knowledge of the matter was obtained through the use of his or her senses (as sight or hearing)

************************************
circumstantial evidence
: evidence that tends to prove a factual matter by proving other events or circumstances from which the occurrence of the matter at issue can be reasonably inferred
************************************************

Time for a little Continuing Legal Education for you, don'tcha think?

[TexasSissy]

216. You beat me to the punch on this one. Yes, another "lawyer" is wrong.

Sigh. I'm guess s/he's a corporate lawyer, unfamiliar with the rules of evidence.

[ultraist]

108. Is PHYSICAL evidence the only type of direct evidence?

And witness testimony and other facts, such as being placed at the crime scene, are forms of (indirect) circumstantial evidence?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

115. I'm Not A Lawyer But I Can Read...

Physcical evidence is not direct evidence... It is circumstantial evidence... Think of the Kobe Bryant case...


The state found Kobe's semen on the alleged victim's body... That was proof they had sex but not proof of sexual assault...

[ultraist]

116. So, physical evidence can be direct or circumstantial?

Circumstantial Evidence - Evidence which proves a fact indirectly, by logical inference, from two or more proved facts.

Direct Evidence - Evidence that directly proves a fact, without requiring that any inferences be drawn or any other facts be proven.

Physical Evidence - Tangible items that tend to prove same material fact

[DemocratSinceBirth]

118. This Is Beyond My Ken But I'll Give It A Shot...

But even direct evidence can be wrong...

Mary can say she saw me shoot Johnny but she could be mistaken or lying....Now if ten people say they saw me shoot Johnny the cumulative weight of the evidence would seem to support Mary's accusation but the possibility exists they all could be mistaken or lying...


Physical evidence can be wrong too as illustrated by my Kobe example...

DNA is technically circumstantial evidence.. It can show the presence of DNA but can't show how the DNA got where it was...



I don't think one has to be a lawyer to realize that as long as imperfect humans are rendering decisions these decisions can sometimes be wrong...

[Guaranteed]

144. Yes. Direct evidence would be something like a video

of the incident.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

135. What on earth does that mean?

More than ever, I'm convinced people are watching too much TV.

[ultraist]

139. whatever...

I bet you win over a lot of juries with your charm, doncha? ;)

[OldLeftieLawyer]

152. No, I win with reason and facts

And I thank you and your kind for making me rich.

[ultraist]

168. "You and your kind?" WTF?

How rude. Either you were tipping the scotch last night or have serious issues with arrogance. You are making a lot of assumptions based on a few posts.

I think your juries would love to hear you feel they are dumb and your method of winning is to lie and trick them. How noble.

Why do you feel the need to insult others and brag about yourself so much?

Are you really in your fifties?!?!?
:wow:

[forgethell]

186. She said much the

same thing to me on another thread. She may be a lawyer, but I've got a Ph.D. in engineering. So, somehow, I don't feel too mentally deficient.

[ultraist]

189. And you shouldn't. You have MORE of an education

It's common knowledge that anyone of AVERAGE IQ can get through law school. It's a lot more difficult to earn a PhD in engineering.

The fact is, Scott Peterson had TOP NOTCH attorneys. He didn't have some lowend, sleazy defense attorney or public DA. I'm not too worried about him not getting a fair trial.

[forgethell]

192. I'd say that

not only did Scott get a fair trial, Lacy did, too.

[RuleofLaw]

212. BS.

Come back and say that again when you have a J.D. Until then, stick to issues you actually know something about.

[Name removed]

196. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

125. It's more complicated than that

But, here's the easy part: direct means "direct."

Witness testimony can be impeached in so many ways, but there are also very narrow, complex exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Did you know that law school has a class that deals only with evidence? It's called "Evidence," and it lasts two semesters. That's how complicated and difficult the matter of "evidence" is.

It's kind of entertaining, though, watching people here batting the concept around, thinking that they know what it means.

[ultraist]

138. uh huh...

"Two semesters?" Are we supposed to ooooh and aaah over that?

Geeez guy, I didn't know that people without a TWO YEAR law degree were not allowed to discuss basics about our judicial system.

:eyes:

Citing your YEARS of experience would have been more impressive. OR, you could have simply offered some answers without mocking us.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sadiesworld]

214. A JD is a THREE YEAR degree.

[Hamlette]

188. example of direct and circumstancal evidence

Mom bakes some chocolate cookies and tells her kids not to eat them before dinner. A while later she returns to the kitchen and her son Billy and daughter Suzie and in the kitchen and the cookies are gone. Mom says "what's going on here." Billy says "Suzie ate all the cookies. I didn't eat a single one."

Billy's face and hands are covered in chocolate. Suzie's are not.

Billy's testimony, were he to testify at court, would be direct evidence. He saw, or so he says, Suzie eat the cookies.

The fact that Billy was covered with chocolate is circumstantial evidence.

Should mom believe Billy or her own eyes? (If you've raised kids, this is an easy question, lying little buggers.)

That was the example of circumstantial evidence we learned in law school.

[ultraist]

193. Thanks for a great answer!

I understand the difference between direct and circumstantial, I wasn't sure if physical evidence could ever be considered direct. Something such as semen in a rape victim opposed to say, an item of the perp found on the property of the victim (which he may have left there anytime). But apparently, physical evidence is not categorized that way (direct vs. circumstantial).

[TexasSissy]

217. No, direct evidence is evidence that is DIRECT, which is to say,

it is firsthand. When you SEE SOMETHING, you have firsthand knowledge of it. That is called direct evidence. When you DO SOMETHING, you have firsthand knowledge of it. That is called direct evidence.


DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

lectlaw.com

[TexasSissy]

215. A shame you don't know your legal stuff, Mr. Lawyer. Read it and weep.

Yes, Virginia, eyewitness testimony is "direct evidence." Look it up in your lawbooks.

DIRECT EVIDENCE - Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

lectlaw.com

(I believe the first tenet of litigation is not to ask a question unless you know the answer. That could be expanded to " Don't make a statement unless you know it's true.")

[TexasSissy]

219. You're not a practicing lawyer, either, or you'd know basic legal defini

tions.

[MXMLLN]

161. It's a pity that they didn't have you as as jury of one. n/t

[ultraist]

175. Scott Peterson had the best hired guns money can buy

I feel no pity for him. He is not a poor black man who had an overworked, untalented public DA represent him.

Furthermore, it seems his jury has more integrity and sophistication than someone who resort to juvenile bully tactics and insults.

[bloom]

165. If a defendant lies enough

so that there is no reason to believe him and every reason to believe he is guilty - there you go - it's understandable the jury would decide as they did.

Prosecutors understand that.

[rockedthevoteinMA]

52. How many different members of the jury did they release?

(I know I don't have the correct terminology down) but doesn't right to a fair trial mean that the jury won't be handpicked until you get the results you want?

Wasn't one of the only things they had on him a hair of hers in his boat? Okay now, wtf - the guys married to a woman, and they find a hair in his boat, and use that as evidence in the trial against him? Sorry, it's all a bunch of BS if you ask me.

And yes, I do believe it was a case of the right to lifers...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

74. Interesting

I guess thirty years of practicing law has left me focusing on the case, and not on the political ramifications of a joke trial a continent away.

But, yeah, I agree. The idea that a fetus can even be laughingly attached to a "murder" rap is pure right-to-life, and while Scott Peterson got a raw deal, the American people are witnessing an even larger crack in our personal liberties and rights.

[ultraist]

191. I'm sure his high dollar attorneys did everything in their power

Consider that Scott had the best defense money could buy. He did not have a sleazy, rude, inept attorney who is so run by emotion over reason, they resort to things such as calling people dumb and fat.

Believe me, they pulled out all of the stops and they still lost. There is a lot we don't know but the hair was NOT the only evidence against him. He had no alibi during the time of her death for one (he was alone fishing near where her body was found). He also can be placed at the scene of where her body was dumped. Coincidence? I think not. He had a motive for killing her. He had told his girlfriend his wife was dead, before she died. Point being, there is a LOT more evidence than just a hair.

If you want to be concerned about unfair trials, consider those who are innocent and get stuck with shitty lawyers because they either cannot afford a decent attorney or their case is not so high profile, they can't get a decent attorney to work pro bono.

There are a lot of crap ass attorneys out there, but Scott's attorneys are not of that ilk.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

113. You'll have to walk that road without me, friend.

There was a whole lot of circumstantial evidence, more than the fact that he was a cad and a cheat. There was enough circumstantial evidence, that it was as strong as direct evidence, the prosecutots said.

Heck, maybe it's just my gut, but I say the guy is a lying, no-count baby-killing, murderer, and he got is just reward.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

119. You're quoting the prosecutors??????????

You're serious? What do you expect prosecutors to say? That's just tragic, that you're buying such an absurd line. That's like saying "A go-cart painted real pretty is just as good a vehicle as a Porsche."

Guts don't do well when you're watching TV. It's a man's life, and he got railroaded.

I hope to god you never get arrested for something you didn't do and don't have to face someone who tries to get you convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence. That's the point at which, perhaps, you'll understand the difference between "direct" and "circumstantial."

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

129. I know what your saying, but if you're going down THAT road,

I'm telling you, Scott Peterson is not a victim.

BTW, I'm not quoting the prosecutors, I'm just agreeing with them, in this case.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

136. You just quoted them

So, please. Pick one stance and stay with it.

I am horrified at these TV litigators who decide someone is guilty from what they see on the screen.

I argue with people, and defend Americans, but the folks who say our citizenry is getting fatter and dumber every day just might - oh, I hate to admit this - have a valid point. Stuff like this discussion make me think they're on to something.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

141. I'm not changing positions.

I quoted what they said, and I agreed with what they said. I don't agree with them just because their prosecutors, or because the popular opinion says he's guilty. I followed the trial. Based on the evidence I haerd and read about, I felt he was guilty. It's as simple as that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

153. Oh, now you quoted what they said (again)

First you quoted. Then you said you didn't quote. Now you're quoting.

A guilty verdict is not something you "feel," and watching something on TV is hardly the same as participating. The rush to condemn someone based on TV coverage is indicative of a deep problem that, I think, is called "the dumbing-down of America."

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

210. Ok fine. I misspoke the second time.

Tell me, did you work on the case? Do you have access to evidence the rest of us don't know about? Observant people make rational judgments based on what they see. It is my belief that Peterson is guilty, and deserved his fate. The thing is, it wasn't up to me, rather it was up to the jury. I agree with their decision.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

220. Make up your mind

You have decided guilt or innocence by what you saw in the media, yet you think I shouldn't have a different opinion based on what I saw?

It's called a double standard, and the reason I have trouble with it is because I am a clear-thinking and responsible person who doesn't hold one set of rules for me and another for other people.

For what it's worth - and I trust it's not worth anything to you - I have close to thirty years of legal experience under my belt. That makes me very different from you in how I draw my conclusions about this matter.

I trust you'll work on this one, too, and try to figure out where you went wrong.

Best of luck to you.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

221. Perhaps I simply misunderstood you.

I never doubting the validity of your conclusions. I think he's guilty, and you disagree. That's fine. I never meant to question your legal expertise. If it came out that way I'm sorry.

That point is, I think Peterson's guilty. Period. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[forgethell]

194. Isn't it true

that "eyewitness' testimony is regarded as the most unreliable type of evidence? Especially if the defendant was not known to the witness. Isn't it true that eyewitnesses have been known to lie?

Scott did it.

[TrustingDog]

2. This is the pave way of things to come...

the great softening of justice.

against people that don't tow the line. Has to start with celebrities like Blake or Jackson, throwin a Scott here and there for balance. It's another test to see how far injustice and unfairness can be thrown into the media ring and how many bite.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Ahhhh...wtf...what's a few more women brutalized by men :)?

Now if it were a fetus, I could see making a big deal about it..

[Jon8503]

10. I think you are on point?NT

[forgethell]

211. Everybody is

entitled to the presumption of innocence and a air trial. But, judges and jurors being human, mistakes will be made. So what? They should be minimized as much as possible, but they can never be completely eliminated.

So how does this turn from a judicial into a political issue? Should we have lesser standards of proof if it is a woman who is the victim? Bullshit!!

[FreedomAngel82]

4. Earlier today

I saw Amber Frey was going to be on "The Today Show" talking about her feelings and reaction to the death of Peterson: the man she once loved. When I saw this I had this really big feeling that she might've been in on it. I mean think about it. She was his ex-lover and what if he wanted out of the relationship but for some reason it wasn't happening? What if Amber Frey helped him with the kidnapping? Didn't her body end up around the ocean shore line? How could he have done all that by himself with a pregnant woman? I don't know. Maybe I'm too paranoid lately. :tinfoilhat:

[forgethell]

7. It's not

"without any doubt". It's "beyond reasonable doubt". There is a lot of difference.

Scott did it. I don't know about Blake. He certainly could have. As for Scott's jury, I'm pretty sure they can all live with this just decision.

[northzax]

179. right, and one major difference

is that the victim in the Blake case was a golddigging whackjob, while in the Peterson case it was a cute pregnant woman.

[RuleofLaw]

213. This is where it all goes crazy.

What the F*** does it have to do with the case what the victim was? A murder is a murder, not matter if the murdered person was a cute little girl or a big bad mafia dude.

The problem is that too much emotion is allowed in the court room and not enough facts.

[SoCalDem]

8. The jury system is like that.. some guilty go free and obviously

some innocent get convicted.

The Blake case is odd .. He's a pathetic little guy who "used" to be famous.. He's lived a quiet life in his declining years. A manipulative woman who wants money and a cusshy life railroads him into marriage. he falls in love with the late-in-life baby, and then the "bad-mother" ends up dead..

Did he do it? no..Did he have it done? probably..maybe..

In the end, would locking him up for 10-15 yrs or until he dies make anything better? The jury decided like a LOT of TEXAS juries do when a man kills his "woman" for cheating on him... They probably thought Blake would be no danger to anyone else, and Bonnie Lee brought it on herself.

[Liberal Veteran]

13. Which is why the death penalty sucks.

Irrevocable punishment should not be handed out by imperfect people.

[bloom]

166. It is odd if it's just a matter of sympathy

but it can go that way.



There was way more sympathy for Laci - the wronged pregnant mother.

There was more sympathy for Blake - the "wronged", "innocent", old actor.

[chookie]

9. The jurors were spooky

What I found disturbing was the notion that members of the jury felt they could "read" Scott Peterson's mind and motives by observing his behavior in the court -- his stoicism, etc. They said they could "tell" he was guilty by his demeanor.

Sorry -- those bimbos are NOT qualified to do so. The things they were saying were stupid pop psychology at its worst -- and it was a major factor in determining this man's fate. Bizarre. The dumbing down of the American people effects not just our elections -- it effects our juries and justice system as well.

I found it disturbing that the jurors were speaking almost exactly along the lines of the emotional diatribes of Nancy Grace and her ilk -- aren't jurors supposed to not review that kind of coverage? Or am I supposed to believe it is entirely a coincidence.

I think you raised some good points. It was a case embraced by the "Right to Lifers"/Family Values types -- and they wanted a scapegoat.

The fact that Peterson was a rat does not make him a murderer. I have no use for the guy, but I am very far from convinced that real evidence was used to convict and sentence him.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Some Of The Jurors Were Over The Top

but Geragos impaneled them... He even let a cop on the jury... I think he was the guy on tv....

That being said they saw all the evidence and had the benefit of deliberations. We didn't....;

[signmike]

11. I can't hear you. I've been sent to my deaf.

:shrug:

[Bryn]

23. LOL

I noticed! I can't hear, neither ...

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I Am Ambivalent About The Deaf Penalty

-:)

[jayfish]

132. Whoo Whooo,...

that's some weak-ass shit. Can I ask what your English grades were in school?

Jay

[signmike]

140. You can, you did, and you may.

[jayfish]

147. I Wonder How Quick...

you are to pull that shit in the real world. You know, where someone can slap you upside your head as you correct their speech.


Jay

[signmike]

178. I've been slapped half to deaf over it.

hyuck hyuck *snort*
:D
Oh, I crack myself up!

[jayfish]

184. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

:nuke: lol



Jay

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Circumstantial Evidence

Witnesses might be mistaken or intend to deceive but circumstantial evidence does not lie...


I don't really care to re -itigate this case but there was ample evidence against him...

[Jon8503]

15. Thats the dam point, there was not anything but circumstantial

evidence, the same as Robert Blake, nothing to be 100% sure he was guilty.

You do not send someone to their deaf on circumstantial evidence.

This was the Right Wing Anti Abortionists.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Didn't Watch The Trial...

It wasn't televised and I have better things to do...


I am not going to second guess the wisdom of the jurors who spent months looking at all the evidence..


If he was innocent why didn't he take the stand...

[Jon8503]

28. You know I am glad you asked that question. Why did he not

take the stand. I will answer that just one way. Go to your lawyer and
ask him about that. It is not about if you are guilty or innocent. Just go and ask the dam question. If Scott Peterson had done that, or not done that, there was a very logical legal reason. It had nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. He Has No Legal Obligation To Testify...

And the lawyerly answer is a skilled cross examiner can make a truthful person look like a liar but if I was falsely accused of murder you would have to put me in a staitjacket to prevent me from testifying...

[Jon8503]

40. Hope you never have to be in that situation but you never answered

the question other than you wanted to convict.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Is It Wrong To Want To Convict

A Man Who Was Putting The Wood To His Mistress And Then Murdered His Wife And Unborn Child And Dumped Them Into San Francisco Bay?


What's your question...


My point is that Peterson's refusal to testify only lent credence to the juror's decision imho.....

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

50. Are We Talking About The Law Or Inferences Folks Draw...

I said there is no legal obligation to testify...It's in the Bill Of Rights... The Fifth Amendment...


Jurors are instructed not to draw any negative inferences when a defendant refuses to testify but I'm not a juror so I am free to draw as many negative inferences as I like...


Hint-When in a hole stop digging...

[Jon8503]

64. Yes, you are right. N./T.

[northzax]

180. in fact, isn't the whole idea

that you are innocent until proven guilty mean anything anymore?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

90. That's frighteningly un-American

Shame on you. The Constitution specifically guarantees us all freedom from self-incrimination. That's what the Fifth Amendment brings to us.

You should be aware of that all the time. It's your duty as an American to know that.

Miranda rights are just an extension of this.

If you ever get arrested unjustly, make sure you talk a lot to the arresting officers. Don't worry about self-incrimination - you're not guilty.

Right?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

111. I Was Arrested And Told The Cop I Was Innocent. And Explained

To Him How He Was Mistaken...


You know what.... He was mistaken....




I sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution and won...


Right?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

120. Huh?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

128. You Said That If One Is Arrested One Should Keep His Or Her Mouth Shut...

I was arrested, correctly proclaimed my factual innocence, and was vindicated when my attorney had the charges drop and when I subsequently sued for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution and won....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

134. I'm having trouble with that one

Because if, as you say, your attorney had the charges dropped, you were never prosecuted, so how you ever managed to sue successfully for "malicious prosecution" and "false imprisonment" defies credibility.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

142. The False Imprisonment Refers To The Fact That After I Was

Arrested I was held in jail for approximately eight hours until the bondsman bailed me out...


The malicious prosecution refers to the fact that I was charged with "possession of a controlled substance" which turned out to be a legally prescribed anti-biotic-penicillin...



Of course when they sent the penicillin to the lab for testing it turned out to be just that and the D A didn't prosecute...


Next.....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

151. Sorry

That bird doesn't fly. You were never prosecuted; i.e., no claim of "malicious prosecution" would ever be seriously considered by any court. As for your being held for eight hours, that doesn't meet the standard for "false imprisonment," especially if you were waiting for a bondsman.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

162. What Am Is Supposed To Do Now?

What proof do you want that I successfully brought an action for the claims I discussed?


You're obviously a very bright person... Surely you would admit this is really getting silly...


I really have no incentive to lie...

[WillowTree]

51. "If he was innocent why didn't he take the stand..."

Are you aware that a jury can't take that question into consideration when determining guilt or innocence?

In most cases, and in most situations, a good attorney will do everything in his or her power to keep a criminal defendant from testifying. There are just way too many things that can go wrong, even for a totally innocent defendant, under cross-examination. Not testifying is not evidence of guilt for many valid reasons.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

66. See Post Fifty....

I have seen witnesses take the stand in criminal cases and do well.... William Kennedy Smith for instance....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

71. I Don't Buy The Myth Of The Omnipotent Cross Examiner...

I was a witness in a multi-million dollar medical malpractice case and did quite well....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

91. That doesn't make you any kind of expert

That's civil.

Criminal is all different.

[forgethell]

195. Sure they can

take it into consideration. True, they're not supposed to, but jurors have brains, too, despite what many lawyers seem to think. They want to hear the defendant say he is innocent. I was on a murder trial jury once. The defendant got on the stand and said he was innocent, and we let him go. Not that he didn't kill the victim, he did. But he said it was self-defense, and we believed him. We I, at least) would not have let him go if he hadn't.

Look, there may be lot's of good reasons not to talk to the police. But if you are at a trial for murder, with a possible death penalty, and you didn't do it, I can't think of a single valid reason for not testifying to that fact. I know OLL probably could give me a dozen lawyer reasons.

But for me, if I didn't do the crime, damned if I won't say so. And I would bet most jurors think the same way, whatever the judge says.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. Go read the Constitution

You'll love the Amendments, especially.

Check the Fifth. It's there for all Americans.

[sendero]

34. By your standard..

.... nobody could ever bne convicted of a crime without an eyewitness or physical evidence.

From what I've heard about the case, I'd have no problem convicting Peterson, although I don't believe in the death penalty except in cases where there is simply no doubt of guilt (like Brian Nichols).

The odds of all of these "circumstances" matching up the way they did are astronomical, and the guy clearly had motive. What do you want, a freaking video?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. Circumstantial Evidence Is Often Better

Because Witnesses Might Be Mistaken Or Liars....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

93. Witnesses are not direct evidence

Witnesses may or may not butress the circumstantial evidence, but direct evidence stands on its own and shows the "direct" link between the defendant and the crime. It does not rest on the testimony of a witness.

[WillowTree]

47. Really?

You said:

"You do not send someone to their deaf on circumstantial evidence."

Based on what legal theory or precident do you base that statement? What makes circumstantial evidence less credible than any other kind of evidence, under the law, that is?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

95. Do you know.........

the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence?

You ought to go read about what they are. You'll like it. Fascinating stuff.

[cidliz2004]

174. Circumstantial Evidence is said to be BETTER many times that direct

evidence.

Scott Peterson acted guilty in many different situations which also points to his guilt as well.

His "alibi" was weak and had many flaws in it. Furthermore, it placed him at the scene of the crime
His "motive" was shown and proven to be fact.
His "opportunity" was also shown

His actions displayed OVERWHELMINGLY a "conscience of guilt"

How many men are romancing and lying their girlfriends when their wife and unborn child are found to be missing? No, not proof in the murder, but proof of his total lack of "proper emotional state" in that situation, it illustrated that his feelings were nonexistent and that he was just thinking about his own needs which were preserving a romance rather than finding his wife and child. Lack of concern, coldness helps point to the possibility that he is capable of murder.

There is an old saying: If it walks like a duck
quacks like a duck
it usually is A DUCK!

[seabeyond]

14. if they decided to pin him for murder ok

i domt know if i would have but didnt follow real close. didnt watch any on tv. but i agree. i am surprised they would go to capital punishment. i think this was a wrong decision. and yes i think this was a step against abortions too

so i guess i am not the one gonna crucify you

[Gyre]

16. You are a backseat juror.

You have no idea what information that group of 12 had. They saw the witnesses and the defendant testify first hand. You didn't. You weren't selected to serve, they were. They saw the evidence; you didn't.

Gyre

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. Scott Peterson Didn't Testify

Besides that you are spot on...

[TexasSissy]

53. No, but there were the tapes and the TV interview, which contained

numerous lies by Peterson.

Peterson did it. No doubt about it.

[northzax]

182. what, he lied on TV?

this is grounds for the death penalty?

I have yet to learn what his supposed 'motive' was in this case. so his wife wouldn't learn about his affair? so his mistress wouldn't learn about his wife?

everyone is picking at his bones- 50 bucks says the red head female juror shows up on Oprah hawking a book about how evil he is (She said that last night. She interrupted another juror and said "I know he was guilty as soon as I saw him."

yup, that's some good jurying.

[Jon8503]

19. As far as that, did you listen to what they said. Did you ever wonder

why Amber Fry the massagist had a book ready to go on sale the minute after the verdict.

Did you ever have any questions about her?

Appears that you who had the same information as myself, how in the hell can you convict with the same info as I but I cannot convict with the same info as you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. He's Not...

He's deferring to the wisdom of the jury...


We can have the rule of law or the rule of the jungle....

[cynatnite]

20. What's considered reasonable doubt?

When I saw the two Peterson jurists on TV today I about puked. It seemed to me they reached their verdict on emotion and not logic. They were taunting and gloating. It was a shameful display.

My inclination was to believe in their guilt, but since I wasn't a jurist it's really hard to speculate on their innocence or guilt.

I've been more inclined to think they are guilty, but I wasn't a jurist and I didn't have access to any evidence presented. Even when one is declared guilty doesn't make it so. Plenty of people have been found guilty and actually been innocent.

I think I would need a smoking gun so to speak in order to find someone guilty, but I doubt I'd ever be considered a jurist for a murder trial. I don't believe in capital punishment.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. Reasonable Doubt Is A Doubt Based On Reason...

REASONABLE DOUBT - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm

[Bunny]

21. For the last time, it's not "without any doubt".

It is beyond a reasonable doubt. There IS a difference. Jesus Christ, that's a pretty fundamental tenet of American justice. Those who criticize it should at least be familiar with the basics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. It's Useless...

eom

[Bunny]

26. Yes, I know.

And if I have any brains, I will leave this thread now and not get caught up in a flame war right before bedtime!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Me Too...

I don't really have a vested interest in his guilt....


Either we respect jury verdicts or we don't...


Either we have the rule of law or we have the rule of the jungle...

[seabeyond]

37. but, capital punishment should be "without any doubt".

dont you think

[Bunny]

39. I am opposed to capital punishment in all cases.

[TexasSissy]

55. Philosophically, is there ANYTHING w/o any doubt? nt

[seabeyond]

57. i think the dude that stole the gun and shot 3 or 4 people

in court is without doubt

[TexasSissy]

81. I meant "philosophically." Some would argue that we even exist.

Some would argue that time exists, that we live in the here and now, etc., etc. "Without doubt" can mean different things to different people.

Deduction is valid, IMO. That's why we have juries.

[ultraist]

112. Only a direct eye witness could have NO doubt

And even direct eye witnesses make mistakes. So I don't think the bar of "No doubt" is possible for anyone who did not witness the crime.

[_TJ_]

29. Would you choose death?

Over life in prison? If it was painless I'm not sure that I wouldn't
prefer it to 40-50 years rotting in a cell.

Should convicted killers be able to choose death if they want it?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I Am Ambivalent About The Death Penalty

For instance if I was a juror it would be extremely hard for me to vote for capital punishment for a Ted Bundy, a Brian Nichols, a Scott Peterson, a Jeffrey Dahmer but I wouldn't be holding any candle light vigils for them either...

[lonestarnot]

30. not without a doubt "beyoooooond a reasonable doubt" and you weren't on

the jury were you?

[Jon8503]

43. No ---- What is the point? Texas. We all know you love to execute in

Texas.

[TexasSissy]

56. Come on, now. Let's not get ugly about our states. It's not like WE

made the laws in Texas, you know. It was the Republicans.

[lonestarnot]

62. Thanks TexasSissy! n/t

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

60. NOT! Read again... the original post said

"I am saying if we stick to our without any doubt, than you do not send a guy to his deaf." I said it is beyond a reasonable doubt...not without ANY doubt...Lay off Texas even though I'm in Arizona! What's your point!

[Jon8503]

68. My point is I still have no idea what the hell you are saying.

I did the first time but maybe you are trying to move another direction.

As I said before and the record speaks for itself, Texas executes the most people in this country. Has nothing to do with you but it does with the state.

No offense to you.

[lonestarnot]

72. I was referring to the original post...reread the original post. Peace n/t

[Jon8503]

79. Hey, thanks for the Peace. That proves you really care and are not

just trying to argue. I just don't want to see us start convicting peope on circumstantial evidence. It really does seem to me that was the case here.

I also am against trials being on TV. There is no need for the public seeing these trials. They can be tried in the courtroom.

[lonestarnot]

98. People are daily convicted on circumstantial evidence! More often

than not evidence is circumstantial and not direct that convicts. Think we need cameras in courtroom, real court rooms because it is very educational, forget the judge judy crap, the real stuff is what I would like to see more of than not...lonestarnot

[Jon8503]

105. What the hell are you talking about.? I agree about the Judge Judy Crap

but that had never entered my mind only the ones that believe in circumstantial evidence believe in the Judge Judy Crap.

[lonestarnot]

114. You gettn jiggy time to move on so see ya round....

:hi: Peace

[TexasSissy]

38. A fingerprint is circumstantial. You have to look at the strength

and number of the circumstantial evidence. I'm not sure what, if anything, was there in the Blake case. But there was a mountain of creepy circumstantial evidence in the Peterson case, not the least of which was:

The bodies washed ashore from the 90-miles-away area where he said he was fishing @ the time of Laci's disappearance.

Very strong evidence. Plus, there were a lot of other things. Hard, physical, albeit circumstantial, evidence, that would be hard to explain in any other way.

Add to that the legal presumption of guilt when a suspect is picked up while fleeing the country (died hair, thousands of dollars of cash on him, his brother's I.D., clothing).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. DNA Is Circumstantial Too...

Many men wrongly accused of rape by eye witnesses(direct evidence) have been exonerated by DNA ( circumstantial evidence)


Also, you forgot he went fishing on Christmas eve.....

[TexasSissy]

63. Those cases were BEFORE DNA evidence. New cases HAVE

DNA evidence at the trial.

No, I didn't forget he said he "went fishing." Did you know that:

1. He said he went fishing to a bay 90 miles away.
2. The bodies washed ashore from that same bay 90 miles away. (what a coincidence!)
3. His boat and tackle box were examined. No evidence that anyone fished off that boat, including opening the tackle box, using any lures, etc.
4. He checked the tide action for the bay on his computer before going out - unnecessary for that type of fishing. (But plenty necessary if you don't want bodies washing ashore.)
5. When someone asked what type of fish he was fishing for, or what kind of fish were in teh bay, he didn't answer. (I was married to a fisherman, and I used to fish a bit. You ALWAYS know what kind of fish are there, and what kind of fish you're going for. That dictates the kind of lure you use, etc.)
6. Someone saw him at the bay. He HAD to say he went there. So his admission to where he was was one of necessity, at the least.
7. For premeditated murders, the killers normally have an alibi at the ready.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. He Told Amber Frye He Was Reveling At The Eiffel Tower On New Years Eve...

when he was in Modesto...

[WillowTree]

45. First of all, you're basing too much of your conclusion...

....on "TV law". Any good, unbiased judge/attorney will tell you that circumstantial evidence is every bit as worthwhile as direct or "eyewitness" evidence, and oftentimes it's more credible. Circumstances are what they are and can't be colored by emotionalism or faulty memory. Circumstantial evidence is in no way "lesser" than any other evidence offered in a criminal prosecution. That's only on TV.

Secondly, the standard of proof in our legal system is NOT "without any doubt". It's "beyond a reasonable doubt". There's a big difference. And, seeing as how the jury was actually in the courtroom and heard the testimony and saw the evidence and we only heard the condensed version the media deigned to tell us which was necessarily colored by their own perceptions and/or prejudices, I'm more than willing to place my faith in the jury's conslusion that that standard was met.

[Jon8503]

49. I would say you spend too much time on TV. . Especially

when you say "circmstantial evidence is every bit as worthwhile as direct or eyewitness evidence". This goes against every legal experts opinion in the world. You could'nt even get one of your right wingers to stand up with you on that one. Good God, I am surprised you ever admitted to that one. You truly wanted to convict without evidence for some reason.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

54. Really

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In law, circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence. It differs from evidence provided by a witness who directly saw or heard something of an alleged offence; instead it is the circumstances that surround facts that can be used to infer guilt or innocence through reasoning.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of a person around the time of an alleged offense. If someone were charged with theft of money, and were then seen in a shopping spree purchasing expensive items, the shopping spree might be regarded as circumstantial evidence of the individual's guilt.

A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence."

The recent Scott Peterson trial was based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The distinction beween direct and circumstantial evidence is important because with the obvious exceptions (the immature, incompetent, or mentally ill) nearly all criminals are careful to not generate direct evidence, and try to avoid demonstrating criminal intent. Therefore, to prove the mens rea levels of "purposely" or "knowingly," the prosecution must usually resort to circumstantial evidence. The same goes for tortfeasors in tort law, if one needs to prove a high level of mens rea to obtain punitive damages.


See also
.com/def2/q016.htm

[Jon8503]

58. Thank you for that as it strongly supported what I thought. It certainly

came from no legal institution. Possibly from the University of Jerry Falwell.

[WillowTree]

59. I've heard that from...

....any number of attornies and judges. I even heard a judge tell a jury, and this is a direct quote, "Do not be swayed by the TV "definition" of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is EVIDENCE, no more and no less credible than any other evidence you've heard in the course of this trial".

That's the source of my opinion about circumstantial evidence. What's yours?

[Jon8503]

61. Hey thanks for that direct quote. Because if it is, that is on public

record and we can go to that quote. It would still be on record.

Let us know where it is. Thanks.

[WillowTree]

69. No, it won't be on record.

It was in the course of giving instructions to a Grand Jury in DuPage County, Illinois and, at least in this state, the Grand Jury process is entirely secret and the only things "on record" are the evicence provided by the State's Attorney, the actual testimony offered, if any, and whether or not a True Bill was handed down. Sorry.

But you still haven't offered up the legal basis of your conclusion that circumstantial evidence is not to be trusted on it's own merit.

[Jon8503]

77. And you certainly came up with a very convenient quote that nobody

can verify. This would be a first on circumstantial evidence putting someone to death.

[WillowTree]

82. As a matter of fact...

....there are at least 15 other grand jurors who were in the room who also heard that instruction who could verify it. I can't help it if I don't know whether any of them happens to frequent this board or not.

But what the Hell. Apparently according to your standards, unless at least two people corroborate a quote, the words were never said, so I guess that makes me a liar in your eyes.

Funny, but I can live with that. Peace to you, as well.

[Jon8503]

85. LOL, and certainly peace to someone who is willing to kill

someone on "circumstantial evidence" where working in the legal world have never ever heard of such a thing willingly. It can happen with a jury and especially with a large media audience as we are starting to see.

However, if you enjoy such a thing, peace to you as well.

[Jon8503]

92. Not worth a reply.

[Jon8503]

80. What the hell are you talking about? There is no legal basis. The

legal basis is that circumstantial evidence does not convict. Can't say anymore than that.

[WillowTree]

88. Well.......Gee.......

I guess you're wrong about that because in this case, circumstantial evidence did convict and the judge is standing by that conviction.

As a matter of fact, David Westerfield, the monster who kidnapped and murdered Danielle van Dam, was also convicted and sentenced to death based on circumstantial evidence. So I guess what doesn't happen has happened at least twice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

94. Where Does It Say You Can't Convict On Circumstantial Evidence?

This conversation is right out of the twilight zone....

Hopefully this citation and link will put an end to the tomfoolery that a conviction in a criminal procedure can't rest on circumstantial evidence:

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/CriminalJury/2-3.html



There are, generally speaking, two kinds of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is testimony by a witness about what that witness actually saw, heard or did. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence, that is, proof of a chain of facts from which you, the jury, could logically and reasonably infer the existence of another fact or set of facts even though it has not been proven directly. You are entitled to consider both kinds of evidence. The law permits you to give equal weight to both, but it is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that you must have direct evidence supporting a fact. You may apply the rule of circumstantial evidence.

There is no reason to be prejudiced against circumstantial evidence simply because it is circumstantial evidence. You make decisions on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the every day affairs of life. There is no reason why decisions based on circumstantial evidence should not be as conclusive as would be the testimony of witnesses, speaking on the basis of their own observations.



You may draw reasonable inferences from facts that you find proven. The inferences that you draw from such facts must be reasonable and logical and not the result of speculation or conjecture. Where a group of facts as circumstantial evidence are relied upon for proof of an element of a crime, the inferences must not only be reasonable and logical, but the cumulative impact of the evidence must be such as to convince you that the element has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.





Circumstantial evidence may not only be sufficient but may be more certain and satisfying than direct evidence under certain circumstances.

A conviction may rest solely on circumstantial evidence if you believe it and if it convinces you that the defendant's guilt has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, before you decide that a fact has been proven by circumstantial evidence, you must consider all of the evidence in light of reason, experience and common sense. Either party may present or rely on circumstantial evidence. The defendant may rely upon circumstantial evidence to raise a reasonable doubt; but remember that the defendant has no burden or obligation to prove anything. The state has the burden at all times to establish each of the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt.

[WillowTree]

106. And here's another.

Taken from:

The Investigator and the Legal System

Criminal Investigation, 8/e
Charles R. Swanson, University of Georgia
Neil C. Chamelin, Assistant State Attorney, Second Judicial Circuit
Leonard Territo, University of South Florida- Tampa

"It is a myth that one cannot be convicted of a crime solely on circumstantial evidence. The broad definition of circumstantial evidence encompasses all evidence other than direct evidence, provided that it logically relates the defendant to the crime."

http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072564938/student_view0/chapter21/chapter_outline.html

[OldLeftieLawyer]

96. Of course circumstantial evidence is evidence.

Just like direct evidence is also evidence.

How would you like to be convicted of murder and sentenced to death because you're a philandering asshole who dyed his hair and took off for Mexico because the press was everywhere?

That, my friend, is circumstantial.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. I Think That's Called A Reductio Ad Absurdum

I really don't care to relitigate the case but there was a boatload of circumstantial evidence that pointed toward Scott Peterson...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

121. You litigated the case?

No?

Then how could you possibly relitigate it?

I can set up a boatload of evidence that could convict a ham sandwich, believe me.

It was a railroad job.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

126. The Case Was Litigated...

I guess when all Mr. Peterson's appeals are exhausted the case will be over....

The reference to "relitigation" was understood by anybody who knows the difference between the figurative and the literal...


From my cursory review of the evidence he appeared to be guilty... And with all due respect my opinion or your opinion is not going to overturn the jury's verdict... That is for the appellate courts....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

133. All these armchair experts

and they still don't understand the meaning of "direct evidence," and can't understand why that never stands alone, but must be linked with hearsay and all its attendant exceptions.

Language is the coin of the realm here, and if you say you're not going to "relitigate" the trial, you're saying that you originally litigated.

It's that kind of sloppy language that's contributing to the intellectual downfall of America, and I take it all very, very personally.

Now, about your trying to practice law without a license - tell you what: when you get arrested, hire a real lawyer to defend you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. If You Read My Posts...

You would see I was arrested... I hired a real lawyer... And I was subsequently exonerated.....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

150. I read your posts

And I said, if the charges were dropped, how on earth did you ever bring a successful "wrongful prosecution" suit?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

159. There Were Three Parts...

The false arrest. the false imprisonment, and the malicious prosecution...


As you have established I'm not an attorney but my attorney must have met the elements of the particular claims...


I was arrested.... I was held in a jail cell... And I was charged...
The charges were subsequently dropped...


The case went to court and the jury was impaneled but prior to opening arguments the case was settled in my favor...

It was twenty five years ago... If I was smarter then I would have been a lot more scared....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

163. Congratulations

I'm glad it all worked out so well for you.

[forgethell]

197. You didn't mention

the fact that he placed himself at the scene where Lacy's body was found, 90 miles, or some such, from home. Very coincidental that, and strong circumstantial evidence.

Also, and I'm a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but isn't an attempt to flee also considered evidence of guilt that can be considered by the jury?

[TexasSissy]

67. No, eyewitness evidence is not stronger than circumstantial evidence.

I'm sure you've heard over and over from prosecutors and police that eyewitnesses can be very unreliable. 10 people may see one crime take place, and you'll have 10 different descriptions of the perpetrator or the crime. However, a fingerprint, which is circumstantial evidence, tells a clearer story.

Deduction, my dear Watson. Sometimes there's just no plausible explanation for some circumstantial evidence, except that the suspect committed the crime.

That's why OJ's team relied on attacking the police and the race card and claiming planting of evidence. The evidence was otherwise unexplainable, except that OJ was guilty.

[Imajika]

65. Certainly not the death penalty anyway...

I am fine with a guilty verdict. I wasn't in the jury so I won't question their decision on Peterson's guilt. Saying that, I absolutely do not think a death penalty is warranted here. States that have a death penalty should only use it when a guilty party is convicted beyond any doubt - not just a reasonably doubt. I mean video tape evidence, multiple eye witnesses, etc, etc.

Peterson was convicted based almost entirely of circumstantial evidence. In the eyes of the prosecution and jury he was indeed guilty beyond a reasonable doubt - but there is some chance they are infact wrong. If Peterson is put to death, there is no going back and getting it right.

Perhaps that is an argument against the death penalty period, but at minimum, as long as some states allow capital punishment it really only should be used in cases where there can be no doubt about the guilt of the condemned.

I agree with you about the abortion foes by the way, these people always find a way to get involved if a fetus so much as hiccups.

Imajika

[WillowTree]

78. I wouldn't worry too much about the death penalty in this case.

He's got at least 20 years of appeals to run through before there's any chance of him being executed, and I suspect that this guy will go for every possible appeal. Not that there's really anything wrong with that. That's what the appellate courts are for. Just pisses me off because there isn't a doubt in my mind that that creep killed her.

Anyway, more convicts manage to die of old age on Death Row than from the needle.

[Imajika]

104. You may well be right..

..as I said, I am not quibbling with the decision of the jury to find him guilty. It just seems to me that to sentence someone to death with the circumstantial evidence presented isn't a good idea. What I mean is that short of virtually indisputable evidence, I just don't feel that the death penalty is a good idea. In this case, perhaps you are correct in your certainty that Peterson is guilty, but I am arguing more about when it is appropriate to sentence someone to be executed. Juries make mistakes all the time, and I don't want to see someone killed by the State only to find out later they weren't guilty of the crimes they were convicted of.

Honestly, I am not a fan of the death penalty at all, so that is probably colouring my view here.

Imajika

[WillowTree]

110. In this case, I was really hoping he'd get life.

He's a young man. I would have enjoyed the prospect of him experiencing life, maybe the coming forty or fifty years, in the general prison population reflecting on how much less complicated, in retrospect, divorce would have been. In many ways, he may wind up being considerably more comfortable under Death Row conditions, away from the general pop, many of whom may have chosen to make the Pretty Boy very un-comfy.

[superconnected]

130. you gotta wonder if death row inmates

are like cats though.

They live something like 1/3rd longer when they are indoor cats.

[amazona]

76. I'm with you actually

I had the same thoughts about Peterson. Lot of doubt there in my mind. I did not know so much about Blake, I just assumed he was guilty, but now that I'm learning more, I'm satisfied with the verdict.

What a world.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Booster]

86. Peterson was not a celebrity - simple as that. Personally, I

believe both of these guys are guilty as sin, but after having done several murder cases as a juror, when you get those jury instructions it's pretty hard to convict anybody, but it seems impossible to convict a celebrity. Look at how much evidence there was on O.J. Someone on the radio said that the L.A. prosecutor just can't seem to get these cases right. As an example, there was a shoe print in O.J.'s car floorboard that matched the prints at the scene and the blood matched Nicole and Goldman - how the Hell do you lose a case with that kind of evidence? I remember they just glossed over it at the trial like it wasn't important - WTF?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. Do you know

how many women went missing in Modesto when Chandra Levy went missing? Quite a few, but no one ever heard of them, did they?

Do you know how many women went missing when Laci Peterson did? Again, quite a few, but none of them were noteworthy, were they?

The families were connected, and able to get the publicity. Makes all the difference in the world. No one's ever gonna do a "Larry King Live" about some poor black woman in Modesto, pregnant and 25 years old, who was found murdered, are they?

[Jon8503]

109. Thanks Leftie, a point that needs to be made. You would think

there would be more concern about that here.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

122. It never fails to horrify me

at the punitive, angry, uninformed, belligerent attitudes of the people who post this crap in situations like this.

Perhaps it's unrealistic of me, but I do expect better from DU denizens.

[MXMLLN]

160. You know ... you must be old ...

... cause you sure are crotchety.

[super simian]

117. all these courtroom dramas....

.......are just anesthetics to keep John Q. Public from feeling the pain while his Constitution is dismantled. Why are they clogging up our news media? Give me a break, already. I agree that it's a slippery slope to designate the death of a fetus murder. It's even more slippery when you call revenge justice. I am a passionate advocate for a woman's right to choose, but facts are facts when a fetus is viable. If -- and I say if here because I don't know and don't care if Scott Peterson was guilty -- you murder a woman who is carrying a viable fetus, then IMHO that counts as two murders. Could be that the right to lifers jumped on this one, but I think the courtroom drama as make-news to keep the failure of this administration out of public view while it manufacures fake-news is a much more critical issue.

[BikeWriter]

131. Anyone crucifying you will have me to contend with, too. I agree with you

Scott Peterson is a jerk, but all I heard was circumstancial evidence, and you don't convict on that.

[Orsino]

148. Well, it's an overwhelming amount...

...of circumstantial evidence, which apparently made the difference. I certainly agree that it's weird to convict without any witnesses to the crime, without a cause of death or murder weapon, and with even the time of death uncertain. He looks guilty as all hell, but I don't recall hearing of any other similar conviction.

[BikeWriter]

176. He looks guilty as hell, but so have a lot of others wrongly convicted!

No weapon, no forensic evidence in the house or boat... Nothing saying he's guilty without a shadow of doubt!

[Orsino]

177. Standard is "reasonable" doubt...

...meaning that the evidence only has to convince a jury. I wish we could use a stricter standard--especially when the state is determined to execute the defendant.

[BikeWriter]

183. An appeal is automatic on capital crimes. I think his lawyer ought...

...to stall it a couple of years then get him off. He was convicted by the media.

[raysr]

137. What has the

"Nancy Grace" factor had on Peterson? Bartcop has been talking about her influence on this case for some time.

[Swamp Rat]

145. Guilty or not, Scott Peterson was tried and convicted by Nancy Grace

and her ilk a long time ago. :puke:

Brandeis and Holmes are rolling in their graves.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

156. i loathe that ameba and the other one Gloria ??? (amber frys atty.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. It's Sad That A Discussion Of Scott Peterson's Substantive

Guilt Or Innocence Turned Into A Discussion Of Each Other Or The Proverbial Internet Pissing Match...

It's even sadder that this thread provoked my darker angels and I joined in the pissing match...


People of good will can disagree about Scott Peterson's guilt...He had access to a fine lawyer and will have access to fine appellate lawyers... If he didn't do it eventually truth will out...

[Jon8503]

154. You are right and I want to apologize for myself if I was rude,

I did not mean to be. Thanks, Jon

[enki23]

157. truth doesn't always eventually "out"

sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. sometimes we get it right the first time, then fuck it all up later. but to expect everything to turn out alright in the end, just because it should, would be pretty naive.

[ultraist]

172. I agree

It's pathetic that a few are so lacking they resort to calling people dumb, rather than engaging in a civil discussion. Bragging about making money off of people's supposed stupidity is so sleazy. So much for ethics, eh?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

155. i agree

[Lisabtrucking]

158. I agree with you, this case smells of injustice.

[Catrina]

164. Was it murder?

I didn't hear all the evidence, but as far as I could tell, there wasn't even evidence as to how Lacy died. Nothing in the house that showed a struggle, no blood, nothing.

As for the bodies being found in the same lake Scott claimed he went fishing on, if he is guilty, why did he admit to being on the lake at all? Did anyone know he was there?

As a juror, I would have wondered, 'could someone else have been the murderer and after learning that Scott was on the lake, dumped the body there?'

Also, it is possible that she died accidentally, perhaps during an argument, and Scott panicked fearing he would be blamed, and took the body to the lake. If so there seems to have been no evidence in the house that there was a struggle. It could have happened on the boat, of course, accidentally.

Otoh, a stranger may have killed her, but I think it more likely, considering that she was found in the lake where Scott went fishing, that it was either he or someone who knew both of them.

I can think of many other possibilities. That's what bothers me about this case. I could never have convicted someone in a death penalty case without even knowing if the victim was actually murdered, and if so, how it happened.

He cheated on his wife, and lied and it seems he was not a nice guy, but that isn't murder. To sentence someone to death with so many questions unanswered is a travesty of justice, imo.

The two jurors I did see really made me wonder if their decision was based on anything other than 'feelings' that this was not a nice guy, and Lacy was wonderful, therefore he did it.


Someone once said, 'better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man be convicted' ~ that's a paraphrase and I'm not sure I agree with it totally, but to be sentenced to death for something you did not do, has to be hell on earth. Also, I do not agree with the death penalty. Especially now, since DNA has exonerated so many on death row.

[ArkDem]

167. Who are these people you are talking about?

[maxsolomon]

169. who is scott peterson & why do i care?

and who is this "robert blake"?

cut it out with this pointless timewasting BS.

[Bunny]

185. Well, I guess that settles that!

Attention Everyone!!! Attention please!!!

maxsolomon is now going to announce what we are permitted to discuss! Because only he knows what is worthy and what isn't! So please, listen up!!!

Okay, maxsolomon - here's your chance. Deign to tell us what is important.

:eyes:

[McCamy Taylor]

171. He has grounds for appeal.

[WillowTree]

199. In California...

....a death penalty conviction has two automatic appeals.

[UdoKier]

181. Scott Who? Robert Blake what?

Wasn't he one of the little rascals? Is this something we are supposed to know or care about?

[Bunny]

187. Well, you are the 180th post on this thread.

So obviously someone knows and cares about it. Question: if you truly don't know or care about these issues, why are you here in this thread? Seriously. What is your excuse?

[UdoKier]

190. Hey , as bad as things are, I can't blame you guys...

... for wanting to talk about J. Lo & Brad Pitt's love triangle with Michael Bolton, or whatever crap the corporate media is serving up as "news" these days.

It's a wonder the National Enquirer hasn't gone under, what with NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN and MANBC hogging up all the sensationalistic, irrelevant gossip stories.

ENJOY.

[Bunny]

198. Well, thanks. I guess. But you didn't answer my question.

Since you are so clearly above these mindless issues, why did you even come into this thread?

[UdoKier]

200. I'm wondering why this thread came out of the lounge.

Isn't that the place for discussing celebrity gossip, etc?

And I'm not above it. It's just completely irrelevant. Does the corporate media keep you on a payroll to try and legitimize this garbage?

[Bunny]

201. Yeah, I'm on the payroll of the corporate media.

You were the clever one who finally busted me. Damn you and your superior sensibilities. I guess I'll have to leave DU, now that you have ruthlessly exposed me, with your keen intellect and rapier wit, for the shallow, irrelevant fool that I am. Shit. My corporate masters are going to be very unhappy...

[UdoKier]

202. Then why the desparate defense of gossip fluff?

You can't get off with little sarcastic cracks. Instead of accusing people who are sick of ALL OF US being distracted by dog-and-pony-shows of snobbery, please explain why anybody at DU should give a crap about Brad, Jen, J. lo and Michael Jackson when this whole country is gasping its last damn breaths?

[jdj]

203. precisely. come into my parlor said the spider to the fly.

I'll keep you snuggly warm while I'm wrapping you in your own personal cocoon.

[Bunny]

204. Can you climb down off your pedestal for just a moment?

I don't have to justify to you or anyone else why I am interested in this. Unlike you, apparently, I am able to multi-task. I can be interested in this and, at the same time, be concerned about the state of the country. Yes, it's true! I can do both!

And FYI, I didn't begin the sarcastic little cracks, you did. So don't complain when you get it back. And furthermore, you seem to be spending a lot of time on a topic that is "completely irrelevant", I believe is how you worded it. Just sayin...

[UdoKier]

205. Again with the phony "snobbery" accusations...

And while the outcome of these silly trials or whatever other celeb news is going on is totally irrelevant, the increasing use of such nonsense during what are supposed to be news broadcasts *IS* relevant to why we are in such a sorry state as a country.

And so is the fact that so many people waste so much valuable time and effort on discussing it.


Multi-task - LOL. There is something to be said on concentrating one thing, attention to detail, etc.

I realize the odds that you're really a shill for the corporate media are low. Maybe you're just trying to rationalize and justify your own "People Magazine" tastes.

Aren't there plenty of other forums where people prattle on endlessly about this stuff? Why do it here?

[Bunny]

206. Again, I ask: If you don't want to discuss this, why did you

come here? What else can I conclude but that you want to put others down because they don't comply with your narrow definition of acceptable, righteous topics? You have yet to answer this basic question, and I don't understand why.

And, if you are that deeply concerned that discussing this is somehow impugning DU's integrity, or wasting its bandwidth, or whatever your issue is, why don't you take it up with Skinner? If he feels the same way, he can ban the topic.

Incidentally, there are legal issues in all of these cases that make them interesting, from a criminal justice standpoint. But I guess even that doesn't count when you're sitting on high.

Yep, you busted me. I'm all about prurient, juicy gossip.

So, I trust that any postings of yours on DU, from now on, will only concern the most somber, earth-crushing, life and death topics? I'll be anxious to see that.

Happy posting! Or, should I say, somber posting! :hi:

[UdoKier]

207. No, I get burned out on GD.

And when I do, I keep my silly posts in the Lounge where they belong.

[Bunny]

209. Okay, I think I get it.

It's fine to be interested in this completely irrelevant stuff, so long as it's confined to the Lounge? Well, that clears that up! Maybe you should hit Alert and ask that this thread be moved to the Lounge?

[Name removed]

208. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.